A department of the DOJ defied a federal court order. This is a big deal IMO.

[alwaysinasnit]

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/12/a-conservative-judge-draws-a-line-in-the-sand-with-trump-administration-114185

snip...

In a jaw-dropping opinion issued by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago on January 23, Judge Frank Easterbrook—a longtime speaker for the conservative Federalist Society and someone whom the late Justice Antonin Scalia favored to replace him on the U.S. Supreme Court—rebuked Attorney General William Barr for declaring in a letter that the court’s decision in an immigration case was “incorrect” and thus dispensable. Barr’s letter was used as justification by the Board of Immigration Appeals (the federal agency that applies immigration laws) to ignore the court’s ruling not to deport a man who had applied for a visa to remain in the country.

As Washington reels from the surprise withdrawals of Roger Stone‘s prosecutors, apparently triggered by Trump’s intervention in the upcoming sentencing of his long-time adviser, the Easterbrook broadside offers another window into the way the Trump administration is violating the division of power between the executive and judicial branches.

The 7th Circuit case involved an undocumented immigrant, Jorge Baez-Sanchez, who was subject to removal from the United States after being convicted of a crime. Baez-Sanchez applied for a special visa allowing him to remain in the U.S. if he was also a victim of a crime. An immigration judge twice granted Baez-Sanchez a waiver. But the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the immigration judge’s decision, claiming that only the attorney general personally could grant waivers—not immigration judges. Baez-Sanchez appealed to the 7th Circuit, which disagreed and remanded the case with a directive that the Department of Homeland Security comply with the immigration judge’s waiver. When it refused, Easterbrook, a 35-year veteran of the court, had had enough of the willful disregard for judicial authority.

“We have never before encountered defiance of a remand order, and we hope never to see it again,” Easterbrook wrote. “Members of the Board must count themselves lucky that Baez-Sanchez has not asked us to hold them in contempt, with all the consequences that possibility entails.”

snip...

----------------

Barr's arrogance is phenomenal, but if this behavior continues unchecked, 45 and cabal will have eviscerated the judiciary too (to the extent that they don't agree with judicial decisions).

[Shrike47]

1. This is astounding. Openly ignore and defy a court order?

I am a former state Assistant Attorney General. We drummed into our clients (state employees ) : you have to obey direct orders from a court until/unless it’s stayed, no matter how wrong you think it is.

The lawyers here should be held in contempt.

[alwaysinasnit]

2. You're so right. That is why I consider this such a big deal; the implications of defiance of a

court order without adverse consequences.

[dixiegrrrrl]

6. Barr is defying any authority but his own.

The 4 USAs who refused to carry out his orders re: Stone yesterday are being applauded for their courage.

I'm Just hoping there is more of them than of Barr's ilk, altho he is solidifying power at a fast pace,

I am seriously worried.

[DENVERPOPS]

3. Trump has appointed him as

his very own head of Schutzstaffel.

Not surprisingly, Trump's ex says that he kept a bunch of hitler's writings by his bed for bedtime reading......how sick is that.....

[alwaysinasnit]

4. +1000

[maxsolomon]

5. Impeachable.

Please begin proceedings.

[alwaysinasnit]

7. Conundrum. If Barr were impeached, who would have authority to remove him? Would there be any

other viable remedy to escort him out of the DOJ?

[localroger]

8. His own ex-employees would likely show him the door

But these people have been selected over years for loyalty to the system they serve, and they're unlikely to defy the people who are legitimately in the chain of command above them even when those people are clearly corrupt and evil.

The problem is that the Founders never envisioned -- or more accurately did envision but hoped against -- a situation where multiple arms of the government were simultaneously and deeply corrupted. The President has entirely too much power and has had too much power since Congress redefined the word "war" to cede its own authority over the military in the 1950's. The concentration of power in the Executive has been justified in several stages on grounds of expediency, but the end result is that if the President doesn't want to enforce an action ordered by one of the other branches, there isn't really any recourse. This hasn't been so obvious until now because previous Presidents have wanted to maintain the illusion that the system was working as designed, but Trump just plain doesn't care.

There are a few paths that fall short of a military coup, such as the House reducing the DoJ's budget to 1 cent, but the end result in all such cases is a massive disruption of the system we are trying to save in order to shake it loose from the mob bosses who have taken control.

[alwaysinasnit]

9. Yup. There are no good options.

[Lonestarblue]

10. I posted this comment in another thread, but it fits here also.

From today’s Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/authoritarianism-experts-say-time-running-out-americans-to-stop-trump-2020-2


"There need to be mass protests," he said. "The Republican Party is betraying democracy, and these are historical times. Someone has got to push back.

"The deeply worrying moment is when you start to become a one-party state," Stanley added. "The Republican Party has shown that it has no interest in multi-party democracy ... They are much more concerned with power, with consolidating power."

Stanley said recent actions by Republicans and Trump were "straight from the literature on authoritarianism." ...

“Stanley described Barr as a "dangerous, authoritarian enabler," adding that Trump and those in his administration were not the only issues when it comes to an anti-democratic slide in the US.

"It's almost all of the Republican Party," Stanley said. "Mitch McConnell already showed that he has no loyalty to the rule of law when he denied Obama the right to appoint Supreme Court justices ... It's a much deeper problem."

He added: "We need conservatives and Republicans to stand up for the rule of law, and if we don't have that, it's over."

The authors also questioned how fair the 2020 election would be. Dangerous times.

[alwaysinasnit]

13. +1000

[mountain grammy]

16. This is the truth.

[CanonRay]

11. It's a huge deal

even by Trumpian standards

[alwaysinasnit]

15. +1000

[Takket]

12. great... so IF SCOTUS rules against drumpf, DOJ can just say it is "incorrect" and they move on

[alwaysinasnit]

14. I think it all comes down to who is tasked with enforcement and almost everything goes through

the DOJ. So in this instance, for 45, Barr has been an inspired choice for keeping him (45) above the law.